Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UK Essays.

1. Siam in the Expansion period 1905 - 1934

In the preceding chapter, we considered the foundation period of primary education reform from 1871 to 1904, particularly in relation to ethics instruction. In this chapter, we will consider the second period of reform - the expansion period. This period, extending from 1905 to 1934, embraced the last five years of King Rama V's reign (1905 - 1910), together with the reigns of Kings Vajiravudh (or Rama VI, 1910 - 1925) and Prajadiphok (or Rama VII, 1925 - 1934). These were eventful years for Siam, witnessing the rise of a new political class, the country's entry upon the international stage through its participation in the Great War and the League of Nations, the effects of the Great Depression, the abrupt transition from absolute to constitutional monarchy in the revolution of 1932, and the abdication of the reigning monarch Rama VII in 1934.

‘Goodness, beauty and prosperity will be with them throughout their lives if they have acquired education.'[1] These words from Rama V's decree of 1871 sum up his vision of education, including its moral dimension. As we have seen, he began by ‘modernising' education within the palace, but by the end of his reign had embarked on the expansion of educational opportunities to people of all classes throughout Siam.

Early in the expansion period, the subject of Ethics was added to the primary curriculum, its content comprising essentially a course in Buddhist morality. This reflected the anxiety of Rama V that the people would lose touch with their ethical and spiritual roots in Buddhism - a possible undesirable side-effect of his own attempts modernise (which meant, in effect, to ‘secularise') the education system.

At the start of the foundation period, Rama V's most pressing educational concern had been to produce more highly qualified and competent administrators to staff the offices of his government. By the end of his reign, however, the realisation was growing that a modern state needed not just a literate bureaucracy but also a diversely skilled workforce capable of supporting a productive and diversified economy. Thus, by 1913, King Vajiravudh (Rama V's son) had proclaimed two national educational goals: to broaden the scope of public education beyond the art of reading and writing, and to educate the people for productive vocations.[2]

Attempts to develop basic education on these lines, and even to provide opportunities for higher education, continued through the reign of Prajadhipok (Rama VII: 1925-1934). In 1932, however, a coup took real power from his hands, leaving him as a figurehead. Nevertheless, the cause of public education was taken up vigorously by the new national government. Article 63 of the 1932 Constitution stated that ‘all educational institutions must be under the State and more than half of the population will complete primary education by 1942.'[3]

The revolution had been carried out in the name of democracy, but the revolutionaries were uncomfortably aware that the Siamese people had little notion of what would be required of them in a parliamentary state. Thus Siam's the school system found itself charged with an additional task - to educate citizens for democracy.

Before focusing on the changes made to education in the expansion period, we must explore more fully these aspects of the historical context.[4][5]

1.2. Politics and Administration 1905-1934 (B.E. 2448-2477)

Faced with the advance of western colonialism, King Rama V had embarked on a radical program of modernization of Siamese society. Only a ‘modern' Siam could preserve its independence and identity against Western power. But modernisation was a long-term strategy. In the short term, it was necessary to play for time by cultivating friendly relations with the colonial powers, in the hope of forestalling any confrontation that might lead to the loss of territory or sovereignty. Accordingly, Rama V signed a number of unequal treaties, granting extraterritorial rights to European citizens, and even gave up some of his dominions to assuage the imperial appetites of Britain and France.

From 1894, Rama V carried out a major administrative reorganization, putting in place a system which still forms the basis of public administration today. Administration was decentralized to regional and local authorities (Monthons) under the power of the Interior Ministry. Each region comprised a number of provinces (or towns), and each province a number of districts and villages. The head of each region was a Lord-Lieutenant, or sometimes a Viceroy, who was invested with full power to administer his area under the provisions of the Royal Decrees promulgated from time to time. Governors and district officers were appointed in all rural areas. Bangkok was exempted from this system, as the king remained its supreme head, although he delegated this power to the Metropolitan Ministry.[6] Taken as a whole, these measures were successful both in maintaining the country's independence throughout the turbulent years of the Western colonial threat and in providing a foundation for the modern system of government.[7] [Was this the local government system that inherited responsibility for the local schools in 1935, after the failure of the local committee system was acknowledged?]

1.2.1. King Vajiravudh (1910 - 1925)

At the death of Rama V in 1910, his son Prince Vajiravudh succeeded to the throne as Rama VI. The first Siamese monarch to receive an education abroad, Vajiravudh had attended Sandhurst and Christchurch College, Oxford, spending nine years in England before his return to Siam in January 1903.[8]

As king, Vajiravudh continued the process of nation-building and administrative reform begun by his father. By this time, the educational initiatives of the previous reign were producing actual improvements in the quality of governmental administration. Junior officials were better qualified and more capable. In addition, at the elite levels of government, many of the king's brothers had, like the king himself, completed studies in Europe in a range of fields including natural science, finance, public administration, military science, and diplomacy. They were able to bring this expertise to their leading roles in government.

As a result of the high importance attached to it by the crown over two reigns, government service acquired a prestige that made people prefer it to other occupations. In the expansion period, the government increasingly saw that this tendency was not wholly beneficial to the broader development of Siam's society or economy.[9] People's aspirations needed to be channelled in the direction of economically productive work.

Meanwhile, the upper echelons of the growing bureaucratic class had become part of a new social elite. There were two other strands to this elite: the officers of the new standing army, and the business class that had emerged since the Bowring treaty opened up Siam to free international trade in 1855. Together, these three groups formed a new ‘political class' that increasingly resented its exclusion from power. As we will see, this sense of exclusion ultimately found expression in the revolution of 1932.

Vajiravudh, however, was more preoccupied with Siam's fortunes in the international arena than with creating a fairer distribution of power within the kingdom. If Siam was to stay independent, its people had to be made patriotic and ready to fight for their nation. Accordingly, from the beginning of his reign, he tried to promote nationalistic feelings in Thai men and boys, and to develop military discipline and training. To this end, he founded the Boy Scout Organization in 1909. Boys were encouraged to join the scouts, where they learned to be patriotic, to obey rules and orders, and to sacrifice themselves for their country.[10] In 1911, a Senior Scouts Corps was established and became, in effect, a territorial army. As we will see, scouting activities were also eventually incorporated into the school curriculum. Thus, these patriotic and military virtues became part of the ethics that the school system tried to inculcate.

Another step in the same direction was the creation of the ‘Wild Tiger' (Sua Pa) Corps in 1911. The name was borrowed from the group of men who kept watch on the frontiers of Siam. These Wild Tigers of the past were believed to have embodied qualities such as hardiness, patriotism, piety, fearlessness, and devotion to the king, combined with deep knowledge of both nature and warfare - all the qualities, in short, that Vajiravudh wanted to promote among Siamese manhood in his own day.[11]

World War I provided Siam with an opportunity to test its new military prowess, and to raise its international profile. Vajiravudh prudently maintained neutrality through most of the war, but in July 1917 he decided that the time had come to demonstrate Siam's progress towards modern nationhood. He entered the war on the side of the Allies, sending an expeditionary force of 1,200 volunteers to Europe.

Shortly after entering the war, Vajiravudh also changed the national flag, abandoning the motif (introduced by Rama II) of an elephant on a red ground, and replacing it with the Siamese tricolour, which remains in use today. The choice of red, white and blue was a shrewd gesture of solidarity with Siam's war allies - in particular the colonial powers, Britain and France - which had flags of the same three colours.

The deeper significance of the flag, however, was as a symbol of the new consciousness that Vajiravudh wanted to create in Siam - and for which education was to be an important instrument. The Siamese (still, in reality, mainly a nation of subsistence farmers, living in remote villages, most of whom had never seen a foreigner, or read a newspaper) had to be made more aware of their Siamese identity; they had to be made to feel a patriotism that transcended local loyalties, and become willing to fight or make sacrifices for their country. The new flag communicated this duty. It had five horizontal stripes (from top to bottom: red, white, blue, white, and red). The red stripes stood for the nation (and for blood spilt in its defence), the white ones for religion (the moral purity of the Dhamma), and the wider blue band in the centre - occupying one-third of the total area - symbolized the monarchy. The monarch would be a focus for patriotism, crystallising a vague sense of belonging into a specific obligation. In this way, loyalty to the monarchy became part of ‘ethics' that were cultivated in the school system.

Vajiravudh's efforts to play the part of friend to the colonial powers met with some success. Upon the defeat of Germany in 1918, Siam participated in the Versailles conference and became a founding member of the League of Nations. Having thus achieved a presence in the international arena, Siam began to renegotiate the unequal treaties of the two preceding reigns. In 1920 the United States became the first country to give up special trading privileges and extraterritorial rights, except in certain cases.[12]

But growing international esteem could not stop growing discontent at home, which was in fact being fuelled by education. By this time, not only members of the royal family were being educated abroad. Some members of the foreign-educated elite brought radical political ideas back with them when they came home from Europe. At the same time, Siam itself was becoming more exposed to western culture, as the growth of literacy created a minority market for newspapers and literature. Western novels and romances were translated, and film screenings were common in Bangkok by the time Vajiravudh came to the throne in 1910. Ideas of freedom and equality were part and parcel of this cultural influx.[13]

At the same time, the conspicuous wealth and unrestrained power of the royal family began to provoke resentment. The behaviour of Vajiravudh, an aesthete who loved display, tended to fuel this ill will. His coronation in 1910, a grand affair attended by royalty from Europe and Japan, swallowed no less than 8% of the national budget. This and other extravagances, such as his enthusiasm for palace-building, soon got him into debt, necessitating a foreign loan. For all Vajiravudh's intellectual sophistication, such habits made it difficult for him to command the same respect as his father. A challenge to absolutism began to take shape in Siam among the new political class.[14]

Even before Vajiravudh, Rama V had been confronted with the question of whether to share his power. As we have seen, he resisted the suggestion that he move towards a more constitutional form of government in his lifetime. However, he realised that this resistance could not last forever. Shortly before his death in 1910, he stated to ministers his wish that the Crown Prince Vajiravudh should introduce a constitution and a parliament when he eventually to the throne.[15] When that time came, however, Vajiravudh did no such thing.

In 1912, two years after Vajiravudh's accession, a group of junior army officers, exasperated with absolutism, plotted a coup d'etat. Their plan was discovered before it could be implemented and the leaders were imprisoned. However, the attempt forced Vajiravudh to recognise the vulnerability of his position. At first, he attempted to enter into dialogue with the critics by giving lectures and writing articles for the press (something that his education and literary ability qualified him to do), sometimes under the concealment of pseudonyms.[16] For example, in Klon Tid Law (‘Mud on Wheels'), he argued that the main obstruction to the development of the kingdom was the lack of competent people: the implication was perhaps that Siam was not ready for democracy yet.

But by 1916 the king had lost patience. Giving up on dialogue and experimentation, he opted for repression. He began by closing down certain newspapers on various pretexts, and in 1923, (after some years of hesitation prompted by fear of western criticism), he enshrined censorship in law, prosecuting many publishers and closing many presses. Yet even now, realising perhaps that history was against him, he equivocated by showing some willingness to move towards constitutional government. As late as 1924, he stated that:

If people really want a constitution, and if it is well intended, then petition for it. I shall not hold any grudges against anyone for doing so. I shall consider the pros and cons of the petition. I myself think that it is better to have a constitution, and feel that for one person to hold absolute power is not judicious.[17]

However, any further steps that he might have taken towards constitutional government were cut short. After ruling Siam for 15 years, Vajiravudh died of blood poisoning in 1925 at the early age of 44.

King Vajiravudh deliberately ignored the current tradition that each reigning ruler usually set up one royal monastery by turning his attention to setting up an educational institution instead; he had Vajiravudh College established under his patronage. [This might go better in the later section on religion. It might suggest that the influence of Buddhism faded a bit in Vajiravudh's reign.]

1.2.2. Prajadhipok (Rama VII) 1925-1934

King Prajadhipok, officially named Rama VII, came to the throne in 1925. He promulgated many new laws such as the Land Expropriation Act 1928, the marriage law amendment 1930, etc. [Something should be said about the significance of these laws. Otherwise, the reader learns little from these statements.] All of these laws were thoroughly scrutinized [by whom?] and were strictly adhered to by the populace, which positively affected the country [This sounds too blandly positive and uncritical - see my ‘advice'.]

[Also, I think you need to say something about Prajadhipok's policies on education and Ethics instruction. If he simply continued the policies of Rama VII, you need to say so explicitly. ]

Prajadhipok's plans were upset by two great events. The first was the Wall Street crash of 1929, which triggered the Great Depression. Siam's economy, like that of many other countries, was hit hard, and this fuelled the grievances of the political class. This dissatisfaction led to the second great event of the reign - the 1932 coup d'etat, which compelled Prajadhipok firstly to accept a constitutional form of government, and then to relinquish power altogether by abdicating.[18] As we shall see, the 1932 revolution also had an impact on the development of education, which thereafter was geared to the process of democratization. [19]

Even before the coup, Rama VII himself was aware of the dangers inherent in absolute monarchy. Intellectually, to some extent, he accepted the necessity for change. However, he proceeded too cautiously and slowly. Two years after his accession, he created a Supreme Council and the Committee of the Privy Council as means of broadening participation in decision making. Unfortunately, both these bodies were packed with members of the royal family and the aristocracy, and so did nothing to appease the frustrations of the political class.

Like his two predecessors, Prajadhipok took the view that Siam was not ready for an elected legislature. It would be unfair to dismiss this as a convenient rationalisation for maintaining absolutism. Prajadhipok was not the only sceptic on the question of whether democracy could work in Siam. In 1926, Francis B Sayre, an American advisor originally hired by Vajiravudh, was consulted by Prajadhipok on a variety of pressing political questions, including democracy. Sayre later recorded his advice as follows.

Discussing these issues with His Majesty, I had to point out the inherent dangers. In Siam there was no middle class. The Siamese peasants took little or no interest in public affairs but lived their simple lives in secluded rural districts. To set up a legislature and clothe it with real power overnight without an educated electorate to control it would be likely, I suggested, to invite trouble and possible corruption. Power uncontrolled was almost bound to breed corruption… As I talked with him I felt the utter sincerity of the new monarch and his real desire to lead Siam modern nationhood.[20]

The revolution of 1932 was not a mass uprising; no crowds were rallying in the streets. It was a bloodless coup conducted by leading elements of the new political class, eager to seize a share of power. Sayre's view that there was no widespread popular demand for democratic institutions at this time is corroborated by the contemporary account of the Bangkok Times:

There was no evidence that the masses took any part in the recent demonstration. The discontent of several salaried classes, especially of the officers of the Army and Navy, clearly counted most in the movement. At the same time a contributory cause is to be found in the extension of education in Siam since the middle of the nineteenth century. King Rama VII introduced western methods and technique to the country and the numbers of Siamese students trained in Europe increased. And [these classes of] educated officials, administrators, and officers having once been formed, it was only a question of time and opportunity before they demanded a share in the government of the country.[21]

The coup was staged by a group calling itself the People's Party. All of them were of the ‘commoner' class (khun nang), in other words from outside the ranks of the aristocracy. The ringleaders had begun their conspiracy five years before, in 1927, when they were students in Paris. Their western education had given them a keen sense of the inadequacy and backwardness of Siamese absolutism in the light of current Western democratic ideas. Pridi Banomyong, the leader of the People's Party, articulated its aims in six principles:

1. To guard independence in every way to ensure the security of the nation. This included independence in politics, the courts and the economy.

2. To preserve internal security and reduce internal strife.

3. To guarantee the economic well-being of the people, by creating full employment.

4. To make all citizens equal, so that princes and commoners had the same rights.

5. To grant all citizens freedom and equality, provided it did not conflict with the preceding principles.

6. To assure every person of a full education.

Acquiescence in the coup was not the only option available to Prajadhipok. Elements of the large armed forces would probably have remained loyal and fought the revolutionaries, had he given the command. However, he wanted to avoid bloodshed, and in principle he had long recognised the need to share power to some extent. He therefore agreed to the People's Party's demand for a constitution, hoping to maintain a position of leadership within a constitutional framework. Accordingly, on 10 December 1932, he signed Siam's first constitution, ending 700 years of absolute monarchy. This was a major turning point in Thai history, and despite the many constitutions that have followed, the fundamental principles laid down in 1932 remain the same today.

Behind the scenes, however, Prajadhipok and leaders of the royalist cause struggled over the next few years to retrieve as much as possible of royal power. There were counter-coups and some limited military confrontations. At one point, Pridi Banomyong, the leading theoretician among the revolutionaries, was briefly forced into exile. Steadily, however, the balance of power shifted to the revolutionaries. In 1934, Prajadhipok sailed to Europe, ostensibly for medical treatment. Long-distance negotiations failed to reach a compromise. In 1935, apparently despairing of the situation, he abdicated.

Even today, the 1932 coup remains controversial. Some historians have criticized Pridi and his party for failing to follow their six principles, while others have suggested that the principles themselves were inappropriate to the place and time. Still others have argued that the principles were good, but were misunderstood or misapplied by subsequent rulers, especially Sarit Thanarat, the eleventh Prime Minister, (1959-1963) who in theory was a devotee of the principles, but whose actual rule was a byword for tyranny and corruption.[22] I would agree with his opinion that the six principles should be developed as a network system not separated apparently and also they must be adapted according to the change and the context of time.

On balance, however, there is considerable agreement that the move towards democracy in 1932 was premature. Some have gone so far as to blame Rama VII for being too fainthearted in his absolutism, arguing that he should have fought back more decisively against the new elite in the interests of the nation as a whole. As Sayre had grasped, the great majority of Siamese people at this point had no notion of democratic principles, and their participation in any democratic process could at best be passive. They could not discern the difference between absolute and constitutional monarchy. As for the coup leaders themselves, if their understanding of democracy lacked depth, their grasp of the real needs of the people was arguably just as weak.[23] To quote Sayre once again:

Students returning from England or France or America often were unhappy and disturbed, with half-baked ideas about democracy and human liberty; they wanted Siam to adopt Western forms almost overnight, as if these were but outward garments. Many felt that Siamese culture was out of date, and their minds seethed with modern, western ideas, often superficial and misunderstood. [24]

1.3. The economy and public finances in the expansion period

Although the Siamese economy grew overall through this period, trade was mostly in the hands of foreigners. According to modern government estimates, as much as 40% of the income generated by Siamese trade in this era went abroad.[25] Under the terms of the Bowring agreement, still in force at this time, Siam's power to tax foreign businesses was narrowly circumscribed. [26]

In 1918, in the aftermath of the World War, the entire world was facing economic recession. Siam's balance of payments was in deficit from 1920 to the end of Vajiravudh's reign in 1925. Faced with falling revenues and the consequences of his own earlier extravagance, Vajiravudh was forced to make repeated cuts in government expenditure, and this increased his unpopularity among the military and the bureaucracy, which bore the brunt of the cuts.

This situation repeated itself a few years into the next reign. From the onset of the Great Depression in 1929, Rama VII found himself obliged to make cuts in public expenditure. He felt obliged to excuse his action to military officers on February 5, 1931, thus:

I fully realize that people who are the victims of the reduction program will be in deeper trouble since it is difficult for them to find other means of livelihood. I consequently feel extremely heavy-hearted and most sympathetic for those who have to leave. If I had other ways in which I could shoulder the burden, I would do everything for them but, as it is, I have no alternatives.... [27]

However, King Rama VII also encouraged and promoted the cooperative system by promulgating a law governing cooperatives in the year 1928. He commented, “Farmers who have limited capital but wish to pursue the same aims should form a cooperative so that they can mutually help one another in order to accumulate greater wealth …”[28]

Thus the great paradox of the ‘expansion' period of education reform was that the state's finances, which were essential to fund the expansion of education on the scale intended, were actually in crisis through most of the second half of the period.

1.4. Culture

From the reign of Rama IV, many aspects of Western culture were absorbed into Siamese life. As Europe was providing the model for progress in government, economics, and technology, its cultural influence could not be escaped. In some cases change was spontaneous, but in other it was imposed from above by the king.

One of the most visible changes was in people style of dress. King Rama V decreed that when he appeared in state, the officials attending him should not dispense with their upper attire. To appear ‘topless' would look barbaric to foreigners.[29] Thai women had traditionally kept their hair short and worn a waist-cloth with the end pulled between the legs and tucked in at the back. Now [When, exactly?] they started wearing skirts, grew their hair longer, and wore it in various Western styles.

Other examples of royally imposed cultural changes include the introduction of an official calendar and the use of surnames. On the model of the Christian system of dating, Vajiravudh decreed the use of a calendar commencing from the death of the Buddha (the Buddhist Era, abbreviated as B.E.), which he introduced with effect from 1st April B.E. 2455 (A.D. 1912). He also required everybody to have a surname. This was an innovation, as there was no tradition of family names in Siam. In order to comply, most families had to invent surnames for themselves (in some cases, the king obligingly provided one for them!) Even today, although surnames appear on official documents such as passports, they play little part in social interaction: even prominent individuals, including politicians, are usually referred to and addressed by their first name. [all this is interesting, but can you develop it to indicate any specific impacts that the western cultural influx had on your main subject, i.e. primary education and ethics instruction?]

Yet alongside this Westernisation of culture came a growing official concern to preserve Siamese traditions. King Rama VII established a Royal Institute to manage the Royal City Library's activities, investigate literary works, administer the national museum, catalogue and preserve ancient sites and objects, and to maintain Siamese arts and handicrafts.

1.5. Religion/Buddhism

Throughout the expansion period, the Siamese monarchy's traditional support for the textual basis of Buddhism and Buddhist studies was maintained. Vajiravudh promoted the study of Buddhism in the Thai language. Several texts on Buddhism in Thai, compiled during the reign of his father, were already extant, and many writers contributed more during his own reign, especially his uncle Prince Vajirayan, the Supreme Patriarch. Prajadhipok convened a council of monks under the chairmanship of Prince Jinavara Sirivatthana, the Supreme Patriarch of his reign, for the purpose of checking the contents of the 39 volumes of the Tripitaka (the Buddhist scriptural canon) that had been printed in the days of Rama V, comparing it to editions of the Tripitaka from other Buddhist countries. Revisions were made, and a new text, known as ‘the Siam-Rath edition', was printed in 1927.[30]

Prajadhipok took an interest in improving the education of children in Buddhism. He once said, ‘The teaching of Buddhism to children in Siam has not been satisfactory. Children must be taught to understand morals when they are very young. Religious texts for them should be written in a way that they easily understand.'[31] To remedy the situation, he established at his personal expense a foundation (which still exists today) to make awards to the winners of regular competitions for the best literary work in Thai on Buddhism. The winning texts were published and distributed to children on Visakha Bucha Day.

The position of Buddhism in Siam, and the role of the king in relation to it, were preserved in the 1932 Constitution, which stated that ‘the king must be a Buddhist and the upholder of Buddhism.'

The role of monks in the modernised school system peaked and began to wane during the expansion period. Although Rama V had clearly seen the need for professional lay teachers, he seems also to have envisaged that monks would indefinitely continue to play a part in modern education. This was part and parcel of his belief that ‘there exists no incompatibility between [the] acquisition of European science and the maintenance of our individuality as an independent Asiatic nation.'[32] As David Wyatt has put it, Rama V believed that ‘Traditional institutions [such as the] Buddhist monkhood… could, without creating copies of Western institutions, be bent to new ends that in essence were not so very different from the ideals of Buddhist Siamese civilization.'[33]

During the first part of the expansion period, practical necessity also contributed to the continuation of the monks' role in schooling. Modernisation was still in its early days, and the shortage of trained lay teachers obliged the government to continue to rely on the services of monks. Indeed, as late as 1909, we find the government issuing instructions to local authorities that monasteries which had not hitherto made a contribution towards public education should be encouraged to take part in the general endeavour.

However, the aim was to produce specially trained lay teachers, and it was inevitable that these would replace the monks in the long run. After all, the monastic sangha was an entity in its own right, with its own agenda and prestige. Monks could never be so amenable to state control as a body of state-trained and state-paid professional teachers. For this reason, from 1915 onwards there was a steady decrease in the total number of monks teaching in schools, even though the number of monasteries being used as school buildings continued to increase for a while.

While discussing the role of religion in the new system, we must also note that, although Christianity as a doctrine had little impact on the development of Siamese education (there were relatively few converts), Christian organisations contributed significantly to its growth. It pioneered the modern system of public education in offering Western Education to the kings and his children in the reign of King Rama IV and V. Many private schools were established by Christians in the next period.[34] [Which period do you mean by ‘next'? We are currently discussing 1905-35, so if you mean the period 1935-70, you should discuss it in the next chapter.]

2. Education

[There is a lot of good material in what follows (i.e. sections 2.1 - 2.6.) but also some major problems. I think the section needs radical re-organisation according to themes. I don't think I don't think it is right or possible for me to do this myself, as it would involve too much intervention in ‘your' thesis. However, I've written an extended note with suggestions on how you could re-order the material. I've put this in a separate file, which I am sending you with this. Please read it carefully and let me know what you think.]

2.1. Introduction

In June 1910, just four months before his coronation, Vajiravudh recorded in his diary his father's view that, ‘The staff of the Dhammakarn are making a lot of educational trips abroad, but they are obsessed with higher education and have established several colleges, without caring enough about primary education. If they take a closer look at foreign educational systems, they will realize that primary education is the responsibility of the municipalities and not of the Education Ministry, whose duty is only to make inspections.'[35]

Vajiravudh seems to have taken his father's words to heart, and formed a determination to make universal primary education a reality, and to create the network of local organisations that would be needed to do so.

He started in a modest way. In 1911 the government urged parents in Bangkok to send their children to school at the age of eight. They also began to consider making this a legal requirement. In the event, however, it was not until 1921 that primary education for children aged seven to fourteen was made compulsory by royal decree, although implementation of this was expected to be gradual.[36] In 1913, another Education Plan was promulgated. [What was the significance of this plan? Did it do anything to advance the goal you are talking about, i.e. universal primary education.] Clearly, the goal of universal Primary education could not be achieved without a workforce of competent teachers, and in the same year, the first teacher training college was established. In addition, the first commercial school was created. [What exactly was this and what was its significance?]

During the expansion period, the government's strategy for spreading education throughout the country was to create local committees to take responsibility for establishing and maintaining local schools. By the end of the period, as we shall see, this strategy had proved to be a failure and responsibility for schools was turned over to the municipalities.

The following paragraph is important, but too detailed for this short introduction and should be transferred to the fuller treatment of this subject later in the chapter. However, the local committees were not very successful in their work and they soon became inactive. In 1913, only 1,078 villages out of 5,053 had public education committees. In 1915 the committees were at work in 1,823 villages. and in 1932, the first year of the constitutional monarchy, only in 2839 villages. This means that a large number of villages were still in need of primary schools. The inefficiency of the Ministry of Interior in creating local schools may have been the primary reason why a government statute of 1935 turned local schools over to municipal government.[37]

From the start of the expansion period, the goals of public education began to shift away from mere literacy and the preparation of government officers towards creating a skilled workforce for the purposes of a modern economy. Rama V's educational reforms, which were aimed at preparing qualified personnel for government service, have often been blamed for creating among Thai people an entrenched preference for secure white-collar jobs in government service, to the detriment of other aspects of development, especially economic progress.

Rama V certainly had not meant to create a long-term public bias towards white-collar bureaucratic jobs. His aim had been to educate members of the public for their own benefit and that of society as a whole. However, even before the end of Rama V's reign, the ‘white collar bias' was becoming evident. In the introduction to the 1913[?] Education Plan, Chao Phraya Phrasadet Surentharathibodi (M.R. Pia Malakul), Rama V's Minister of Education went so far as to observe, rather scathingly, that there was ‘a surfeit of half-educated clerks'. He wished that these civil servants had received more specialized training across a wider range of subjects, such as agriculture, architecture, handicrafts, and commerce, as this would have been more beneficial to the economy.[38]

Accordingly, the objective of education was revised [When? In Vajiravudh's reign?] so that only outstanding students were encouraged to further purely academic education to the highest level. [This is important. Say more about who made this policy, and when and where it was first articulated.] The others were to receive education that would enable them to earn a living in their hometowns. The 1907 plan [Do you mean 1913?] attempted to make special or technical education more definitely vocational, and adjusted the graduation ages of technical primary and upper or advanced secondary education. Thus, some attempt to counteract the growing public appetite for bureaucratic jobs had already begun in the reign of Rama VI. [But 1907 was still in the reign of Rama V!]

The government wanted to develop vocational studies not only at school level but also in higher education. It was felt that highly trained graduates were needed in key vocational subjects, such as farming and architecture, as these were urgently needed for economic development. The Education Plan of 1913 therefore paved the way for the foundation of the first Thai university a few years later. [How did it ‘pave the way'?] In 1916, a Faculty of Engineering and a Faculty of Art and Science were added to the Medical and Public Administration sections of the Civil Servant School, and the expanded establishment was renamed ‘Chulalongkorn University'.[39]

In order to ensure a stream of suitable candidates for both kinds of higher education (i.e. for government service and for vocational studies) schooling education was divided [When? Was this in the 1913 Plan?] into two categories, ‘general' and vocational, each of which was organised in two levels: a five-year primary course and an eight-year secondary course. In the five-year primary course, the first three years provided general education, and the last two vocational education. The general education course was retained unchanged from the former system. The new two-year vocational program offered a range of practical subjects, including agriculture, basketry and cane work, embroidery, handicrafts, laundry, music, pottery, rope-making, silver-working, stock-raising, turnery and weaving. In practice, the subjects offered varied somewhat in relation to the needs of different localities. Students who did not want to go into this vocational programme in the fourth and fifth grade could proceed directly to secondary education immediately after the third grade. [Was there any distinction between general and vocational education at the Secondary level?] The eight-year secondary course was divided into three levels: introductory (three years), intermediate (three years) and senior (two years). [How were the ‘general' and ‘vocational' elements reflected in the secondary system?]

[In the foregoing, you include a lot of detailed information, only to repeat much of it (with some different details) later on in the chapter, where you give a blow-by-blow account of each revision of the curriculum. If you dealt with topics thematically, this problem could be avoided.]

[This paragraph is very good but probably belongs in the more detailed account below, not in this short introduction: A UNESCO report of 1950 on Thai education revealed that this attempt to make education vocational was not effective. The report noted that though the avowed aim of the 1935 Education Scheme had been to promote a vocational (and especially an agricultural) curriculum, in practice the curriculum offered little to imbue students with a love for the land or an awareness of the natural environment. Teaching relied heavily on book learning.[40] Worst of all, by the time of the report, many vocational schools had actually closed down because of the low take-up of their services. General education, however, remained popular as a route into the bureaucratic system.[41]

The information in the remainder of this introduction is quite detailed, so it would probably be better to integrate it into the subsequent sub-sections, instead of putting it in this general introduction. It also needs some clarification as it is quite bitty and confused, and possibly out of sequence.

This statute [Which one?] extended the discretionary powers of the Ministry of Education to set up programs of studies for public education. This may be due to the reorganization of the Ministry in 1911 which gave it more opportunity to exercise effective control over public education.

In 1909, it was determined that the Dhammakarn should work together with the Ministry of Interior and the Metropolitan Ministry to expand school facilities to make education available for people in every province throughout the country. The Ministry of the Metropolis was responsible for development in the Bangkok area, and the Ministry of Interior for the provinces. [So what was the role of the Dhammakarn in this?]

On April 10, 1911, the Dhammakarn and the Metropolitan Ministry jointly decided to divide education into two levels: preparatory or pre-primary education (Mula Suksa) and general education (primary, secondary and higher education). Schools were divided into three types: (1) government schools funded by the Dhammakarn; (2) public primary school (Prachabarn) supported by a certain tax revenue and other financial sources; and (3) private schools (Bukkala) supported by private funds. The last two types of schools came under the joint jurisdiction of the three Ministries concerned. [You've only mentioned 2 ministries here.]

Since then, [ ‘Since' means ‘from that time until the present'. Do you really mean ‘since' ,or ‘for the rest of the expansion period'?] national education policy consistently aimed to direct people towards vocational education. By 1913, the government realized that the 1902 Education plan no longer served the purpose of bringing general and technical education closer together, and the persuasive approach had failed to convince the people that technical education could be a more practicable means for their children's prospective occupations or professions. The government had adopted a new approach to the problem through educational mechanism. The Dhammakarn (from 1912) proposed a revision of the 1912 [1902?] Education Plan so as to provide general and technical education concurrently. Eventually, the new Education Plan was officially promulgated on October 30, 1913.

In addition, there were some new promulgations in education in this period such as 1) The National Educational Plan 1907 (B.E.2449) 2) The Curriculum for Girls' Education 1908 (B.E. 2451) 3) Primary Act 1921 (B.E. 2464) and 4) Primary Act, Revision II, 1930 (B.E. 2473) [This is meaningless unless you say something about the significance of these promulgations.]

2.2. Expansion of schooling

In 1906, the Minister of the Interior (who had formerly been the Minister of Education) made an agreement with the Minister of Education to assist the latter in implementing the following goals[42]:

1. All the boys of school age (seven years old) would be required [But you have said that schooling was not made compulsory until 1921. Do you really mean ‘required'?] to receive instruction from Buddhist monks in a monastery.

2. The instruction should be the minimum necessary to be of use to the boys in their future life's work. This would include general education, the scope of which would be shown in official textbooks.

3. Means should be provided to encourage gifted children to receive higher education.

4. The Ministry of Education would prepare four elementary textbooks - one on each of the four key subjects, namely (1) arithmetic, (2) reading, (3) moral teaching, and (4) study of common objects and phenomena [What does this mean? Is it basic natural science?] The Ministry of Interior would help to distribute these textbooks to Buddhist monks. The cost would be met by the government.

In 1906, Inspectors were appointed in the provinces and 369 schools were set up in monasteries. In 1907 came another revision of the national education plan, resulting from the realization that the preparation of personnel for government service had reached a near-saturation point, and that too many people were leaving traditional occupations such as farming for white collar or civil servant jobs. Educational policy was re-formulated on new principles. All male citizens of school age were to be educated in accordance with their ability, with the aim of equipping them to earn a living in their home areas. Outstanding students should have an opportunity to pursue their studies up to the highest level of education. [43]

In 1907, the syllabus of the vocational course was aligned with those in use in European educational systems. This meant that students who later chose to pursue higher education abroad would receive an appropriate preparation for doing so. Both French and English were used for instruction in these schools, but they were widely known as ‘English schools'.

More effective steps in enforcing the national system of public education were taken after the conferences of 1908 and 1909 [What conferences? Have you mentioned any conferences?!] Provincial administrators, both governors and district officers, were instructed to set up public education committees in every village. These committees would be responsible for setting up and running primary schools. In 1910, the government defined this requirement more precisely, specifying the creation of sub-district committees [what was a ‘sub-district'?], each of which was to be composed of one headman [define this term], one abbot and one medical man [How was ‘medical man' defined? Did it mean doctor trained in Western medicine?] to organize schools in the locality.

The abbot would be the chairman of the committee and would supervise the instruction given by monks. The other two (lay) members would inspect the attendance of all school-age children within the village. At this point, attendance was not yet compulsory, but the task of the committee was to persuade parents to send their children to school when they reached the age of eight. Another responsibility was to raise funds for the schools by collecting voluntary contributions from local people. The committees were authorized to spend the school fund for school buildings and the employment of lay teachers.

By the end of 1909, according to the statistics of the Education Ministry, there were 131 schools in Bangkok, with 14,174 students and 748 teachers; and, in the provinces, there were 82 schools, 3,938 students and 155 teachers.[44] Therefore, the total number of schools was 213 and that of students was 18,112. According to the statistics for the same year compiled by David K. Wyatt, the numbers of schools and students in Bangkok were the same, but those of the schools and students in the provinces, were 1,347 and 29, 889 respectively, and the total number of schools and students were 1,478 and 44,0063. [Add the reference for this quotation from Wyatt.] The probable reason for this vast discrepancy is that Wyatt includes private and missionary schools, which do not figure in the statistics of the Ministry of Education. [Why only ‘probable'? Doesn't Wyatt himself explain the discrepancy between his figures and the official ones? Doesn't he actually say what kinds of school he is counting? Also, if he is counting different types of schools, how do you account for the fact that he agrees with the Ministry figures with regard to Bangkok?] [Anyway, if your interpretation is correct, it shows that the number of private and missionary schools at this time was very great, so you ought to say something about them and how they affect the general picture of education and moral education.]

The Ministry of Education's statistics for the years 1917-21 and 1932-34 are shown in Table 2 below. [You need to explain why you have given information for these years but not for others. Is it because the Ministry's records are incomplete and don't include data for all years? If so, why are the records incomplete? These questions will occur to any academically trained reader, who will expect you to try to answer them.] They actually show a decline in the extent of schooling between 1917 and 1919. [what was the reason for this decline?] Student numbers start to pick up in 1920, and school and teacher numbers in the following year. When data resumes in 1932, it shows that schooling had increased significantly on all measures in the intervening decade, especially student numbers, which show growth of well over 500% over 1921. [Some comment or interpretation seems necessary here]

Tables 2. Number of Local Schools, Teachers, and Pupils from 1917 to 1934[45]

Year

Total no. of schools

Total no. of teachers

Total no. of students

1917

3299

4700

144693

1918

3060

3560

120185

1919

2423

2825

113871

1920

2355

2798

120454

1921

2531

3027

127974

1932

6081

12559

695954

1933

6513

15362

781819

1934

7702

19884

988208

In terms of the national budget, the educational allocations from 1902 to 1909 varied between 1,100,000 baht and 1,400,000 baht, representing between 2.2 and 2.9 percent of the total budget.[46] [Why give figures only for 1902-9? According to the chapter heading, the period under consideration is 1905-34. Also, do these figures cover all education, including higher education, or just schools? Here again, any trained reader will ask these questions.]

2.3. Ministry of Education

Chao Phraya Dhamasakdi Montri (Sanan Thepsahasadin na Aydhaya) [I wonder why he has two names? Wouldn't it be better to choose just one and put the other in a footnote? Explain (or drop) the Chao Phraya title.] took over the administration of the Dhammakarn in 1916. Seven years later, it was renamed the Ministry of Education. [Can you give the Thai words and a literal translation? Also, the date for renaming that you give here (1923) conflicts with the one given table below, from which it seems that the word Dhammakarn was dropped from the ministry's name for a period of about 9 years (from 1917 to 1926) and was restored shortly after Prajadhipok came to the throne. Why did they make this change, and why did they reverse it after 9 years? Was it because Vajiravudh - perhaps through his long education in the UK - had a more secular and ‘westernised' outlook than Chulalongkorn or Prajadhipok, and was less concerned with keeping Buddhism at the heart of education? How were ‘ecclesiastical' matters administered in the period 1917-26?] In 1919, he made a statement on national education in which he admitted that attempts to promote technical education had not so far succeeded in channelling people's aspirations towards the vocations, and that too many talented young people still aspired to enter government service rather than economically productive occupations. He argued that a better balance of the two sectors was required to improve Siam's position in international trade. More generally, he lamented that Siamese education was inadequate in both quantity and quality and that progress would require an investment in proportion to that made by more advanced countries. [Was this in effect a plea to the king for a bigger share of the national budget? If so was it successful?]

Figure 2: the Dhammakarn from 1911 - 1933

The table below consumes a lot of space while presenting very little information. Do you really need it?

Functions of the Ministry of Education : In addition to the administrative operation of all public institutions and programs, the Ministry of Education had also to perform regulatory functions to assure that basic statutory provisions for public education were followed and that ministerial regulations were issued to supplement and enrich those statutory provisions. The first and foremost regulatory function performed by the Ministry was children accounting [This phrase sounds bizarre in English. Does it mean the collection of statistics on school attendance?]. This national organization was responsible for the enforcement of the compulsory school attendance law, and for the appraisal and interpretation of conditions to the National Assembly. [This jumps to the end of the period, without explanation.] Its second regulatory function was to control educational professional organization. [47] [This looks like an undigested quotation.]

The 1921 Primary Education Act vested power in the office of the Minister of Education to enforce school attendance. As laws were enforced through provincial governors, the Ministry of Education had to rely heavily upon the Ministry of Interior which was now empowered to appoint school attendance officers and to authorize district officers to excuse children from school.[48]

The government planned to implement compulsory schooling gradually. Immediate enforcement would have been impossible in 1921, when, as we saw above, there were in fact only 2,531 local schools and 604 government schools [What is the difference between local schools and government schools? I thought the data in the table above was for government schools, as it is Ministry of Education data.] throughout the country. According to a UNESCO report of 1951 [Is this the same UNESCO report referred to previously? By saying ‘a' (not ‘the') report you imply it is a different one.], compulsory education was enforced for the higher age groups first, starting with the ten-to-fourteen age range; and, within a period of three years, extended to the seven-to-fourteen-year group. The report explains that ‘It was felt by the ministry that the older children should be allowed to attend school before they were too old, whereas the younger children could wait for a year or two and still obtain their schooling.'[49]

[What is the relevance of this paragraph?] The royal distinctions were conferred even after the enactment of the civil service law in 1928. After the 1932 coup, no new titles were conferred on civil servants and, in 1941, the government, ostensibly as a gesture to the democratic way of life, also abolished existing titles.

The structure of government personnel administration [What does this mean?] underwent tremendous changes when Prajadhipok enacted the first Thai civil service law. The enactment authorized the establishment of a Civil Service Commission to enforce the merit system in government personnel administration and to take charge of Thai students studying abroad.[50]

Government Administration of Teacher Education: The development of teacher training schools was slow and their output was poor. In 1913, eleven years after the establishment of the first primary teacher training school, there were only three primary teacher training schools. The report of the government showed that there were 29 teacher training schools and one teacher college under the Department of Teacher Training.[51] [I am confused! How many training schools were there: 3 or 29? What's the difference between a training school and a teacher college?] However, the establishment of a Teacher Training Division within the Ministry of Education in 1920 was a milestone in the government administration of teacher education.

At the beginning of this period, government schools were found mostly in Bangkok and their growth outside the capital was slow. In 1886, fifteen years after the establishment of the first government school, there were only 35 government schools in the whole country, 21 in Bangkok and 14 in the provinces, with 81 teachers and 1,994 students. The government seeded to encourage more government schools in Bangkok than in the rural areas. Up to 1920, the number of government schools in Bangkok always exceeded those in any provinces. The percentage of government schools in Bangkok was remarkably high in comparison with the total number of schools operated in all the 77 provinces.

Table 3. Comparison of Pupils Completing Education and the Total Primary School in 1921 and 1932[52]

Year

Total number of primary school pupils

Number of candidates for primary education certificate

Number of pupils who completed primary education

Percentage of pupils completing primary education to the total number of primary pupils

Public schools

Private schools

Total

1921

202,637

232

31

No data

31

.01

1932

764,445

3,569

2,114

No data

2,114

.27

In 1921, of more than 200,000 primary students in the country, only 31 passed the examination at the fifth grade level. [But surely you should use only the number of fifth grade pupils, not all the ‘primary school students in the country'. By definition, pupils in the first four grades would not yet be eligible for the exam, so they aren't relevant to exam statistics.]

In 1932, the number of exam passes had increased substantially to 2114 students. However, as the school population had also increased dramatically in the interim, the success rate was still appallingly low. [Yes indeed, but this needs more comment. What was going on? According to the table, only a very small percentage of the school population was even attempting the exam. Why was this?]

Besides, the Ministry of Education produced many regulations for the efficient running of public schools through its various departments. These ministerial regulations can be classified into four areas: (1) curriculum / course of study, and educational program, (2) instructional materials, (3) instructional and non-instructional staff, and (4) pupil activities within and without schools.[53]

The royal proclamation of 1898 had embraced education as a function of the Siamese state, but until 1921, the government stopped short of using the law to make universal education a reality. Parents were not obliged to send their children to school, and the government did not actually impose on itself a legal duty to provide free education for all. It was not until the Primary Education Acts of 1921, and the amendments included in the Acts of 1930 and 1935, that universal education gained the force of law, imposing legal obligations upon parents and local officials to make it happen. [So do you see this as a historical turning point? If so, say so explicitly.] [54]

Education under the Constitutional Regime: As we have seen, universal education was one of the six principles of government proclaimed by Pridi Banomyong, the leader of the 1932 coup. The People's Party firmly believed that education would make a vital contribution to the preservation and progress of the democratic Siam that they had - as they believed - brought to birth. This was declared in the policy of the Ministry of Education for public instruction.

The Government wishes to make education available to all members of the public so that they will be instructed and trained to live in a constitutional regime. Science education will be given as well as training for future careers and the ability to enter all levels of society. Instruction will be improved to make students well-informed, wise and capable of logical thinking. The studies of morality and Thai culture will be included to encourage good behaviour. In accordance with the government's wish, the Dhammakarn will strive to improve its performance in this field.[55]

Article 63 of the 1932 Constitution made it mandatory for the government to administer the national school system and to control all educational institutions in the kingdom. By this constitutional provision, the Ministry of Education became the only national agency for the administration of the national school system.

Educational committee and Council: In 1932, the revolutionary government set up an education committee to formulate an education plan for the nation. This plan was subsequently considered by an advisory council on education whose duty was to advise the Ministry of Public Instruction [Is this the Dhammakarn again? Make terminology consistent.] on all matters concerning education. [What was the outcome?] Under this Plan, primary education would consist of four years of general education (Samansuksa), plus two years of vocational education (Wisamansuksa). The secondary level would be divided into lower and upper levels, each of four years duration. The lower level would be followed by all students, but the upper level would be bifurcated into technical and general streams. It was expected that most students would follow the technical stream, while a minority would follow a general course as a preparation for higher education at a university or other higher institutions. [Could you highlight what was new in this? The general divisions (e.g. between general and vocational, or between Primary and Secondary, had already been in place for a long time.]

The draft National Education Plan was submitted to the Government by the advisory council and published [Does this mean it was approved by the government?] on March 28, 1933. Its outstanding features were a formal recognition of individual educational ability, regardless of sex, religion, and nationality. [Presumably, this new egalitarianism was a result of the liberal / democratic inclinations of Pridi and his followers? If so, wouldn't it be worth saying so explicitly?] Education should be a means of developing the mental, physical, practical and social capacities of each person. The plan had several notable features: (1) the recognition of women's capacity for and right to education at all levels. (2) the introduction of a requirement that teachers be appropriately qualified at all levels of education. (3) the minimum period of compulsory education was extended to four years [How many years had been required by the 1921 Act?] (4) provision was made for the development of kindergarten education. (This was seen as a concomitant of the intention of educating women and encouraging them to engage in paid work.) (5) extension of school inspection to cover sanitation must be considered.[56] [What does this mean?] However, democratization through civics via educational curricula hardly made any constructive progress since then.

The development of private schools: [As far as I can recall, you didn't say much about private schools in Chapter 2, but from the following material, it seems clear that you should have, as some of what follows really relates to the Foundation Period. I suggest you remove the relevant material from here and insert it in chapter 2. In this chapter you should just continue the story from 1905 onwards.]

Private schools were of three main types (1) Christian missionary schools, (2) Chinese schools, and (3) Thai schools. [In what follows,you provide some information about these, but it is patchy and not systematic. If possible, you should say something about the origins, aims, numbers and characteristics of each of the three kinds of private school in the Foundation Period. The number must have been fairly high even in the Foundation Period if the Dhammakarn fel

Cite This Dissertation

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: